Clone a packaged Omarchy UI plugin locally (verified)

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses several behaviors: it refuses collisions (doesn't overwrite), verifies discovery/activation after cloning, and defaults to dry-run (does not actually clone unless dryRun=false). However, it does not disclose what happens on failure (e.g., error behavior), what 'verified' means operationally, or whether the operation is reversible. More detail would improve transparency, but the given behaviors are meaningful.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two efficient sentences front-load the core operation (clone from packaged files) and key constraints (collision refusal, verification, dry-run default). No filler words; every clause adds information. The structure makes it easy to scan and understand quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a reasonable overview but leaves gaps: it doesn't specify the return value or error conditions, doesn't detail what 'verified' entails, and doesn't mention side effects beyond file creation. For a tool that performs a filesystem operation, clarifying outcomes (e.g., success/failure messages, logs) would be valuable. It is adequate but not fully complete for an agent to predict the result.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only indirectly references dryRun via 'Defaults to dry-run' and implies sourceId refers to a plugin identifier, but it does not explain the format, constraints, or how it relates to the packaged files. The description does not clarify what sourceId values are valid or how to obtain them, leaving the agent to infer from the schema's pattern. This is insufficient given zero schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action (clone), the resource (stock non-service UI plugin), the source (packaged files), the destination (user's plugin directory), and two key behaviors (refusing collisions, verifying discovery/activation). This is distinct from sibling tools like plugin_validate, plugin_list, and plugin_local_enable, which handle validation, listing, and enabling respectively.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage context: it's for cloning stock non-service UI plugins, and it defaults to dry-run, which suggests a safe preview before committing. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., plugin_local_enable for existing plugins, or plugin_validate for checking plugin integrity). The exclusion of service plugins and the collision refusal are useful but not framed as 'use this instead of X'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.